Re: Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs
While my gut instinct tells me to be against it, as people should be responsible for moving/taking care of their own finances, that title is misleading and of kneejerk caliber.
In the opening two paragraphs, it says it would convert them into other accounts, which then would be managed by the SSA. This would be in an effort to plug the ever bleeding hole that the economy has on people's current retirement plans. Not "Tha Gob'ment is taking our monies, ma!"
The Repub/Conserv machine is on full standing to take anything, even a hint of a rumor and spin it into a negative about Obama and the coming four years. The "I TOLD YOU SO!" has begun and the guy has yet to be inaugurated or make a single executive decision.
Get used to it, it will be like this the next four years.
Re: Re: Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs
How is the title misleading? The government wants to confiscate your IRA's and 401k's and manage the money.
And can anyone read why the Democrats want to take your money, managed by you, and put it in their hands? Anyone see any reasons in the article? From what I got was "things are unfair for the poor" and money will be taken and redistributed to accounts for the poor while the rich earn less of a percentage.
Yeah, because there are no other ways to help the poor except give them a check from the rich. Stupid them for actually trying to help the poor become somewhat productive. Who do they think they are?
Re: Re: Re: Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs
The writer used "confiscate" so a knee-jerk reaction would initially be set up. They're not taking it away and not giving it back, more like "reinvest."
Like I said, my guy instinct tells me it's not a good thing. Less government intrusion in our lives, not more, imo. If the government wants to set up optional programs and do this for people, sure. They shouldn't just do it in an attempt to hold our ignorant little hands.
But No Child Left Behind actually encourages work and rewards those who succeed..not fail, which is my point. While certain other groups see helping the poor as "give them more money, not opportunity".
They are given what they need to succeed in the first place..if they fail, why should we continue giving more money that is obviously doing nothing? It would be the states job to ensure the schools do well.
Says the genius using ugly women and make up as an analogy for NCLB..goodbye.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 7th, 2008 10:49 PM
<--- banana that is dancing
